Many people seem to have a common goal of wanting to understand the Founders, their thoughts and words as a means of establishing the original intent of the Constitution. For instance there have been countless discussions about the exact meaning of "a well-regulated militia", of the "origin of our rights", etc.
None is more controversial than the idea of this being a "Christian Nation". There are constant posts like "there is no place in the constitution where it says separation of church and state" which although technically correct, does not have any meaning because that phrase comes from Jefferson's famous letter where he uses the phrase "wall of separation". Then it is asserted that Jefferson did not write the constitution, so the letter is not significant in understanding the original intent of "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof", although for many that phrase needs no explanation and its meaning is crystal clear.
Yet there are those who would have it otherwise and claim that "it keeps government out of religion, not religion out of government" even though a cursory reading and a little background into the fears all the Founders shared of a similar situation to that of Great Britain where the Church Of England was the "official" religion and the Monarch the head of said church, should be sufficient to disprove that.
So, here we are reading James Madison "father of the constitution" and what to anyone going through line by line could not mistake for anything other than the clearest message as to what the first amendment means to him "traced as distinctly as words can admit, and the limits to this authority established with as much solemnity as the forms of legislation can express."
Madison starts off scolding the states for their "aberration from the sacred principle of religious liberty, by giving to Caesar what belongs to God, or joining together what God has put asunder, hasten to revise & purify your systems" that have not yet changed the constitutions to reflect the national one similar to what Virginia had done. He asserts that "Every provision for them short of this principle, will be found to leave crevices at least thro' which bigotry may introduce persecution; a monster, that feeding & thriving on its own venom, gradually swells to a size and strength overwhelming all laws..."
He expresses his fear that "Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion & Govt in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies" is the thing to be on guard for and as if to make clear to those today why the use of "Jesus Christ" is not mentioned, he clearly explains the logic.
Before he starts talking about "evil which ought to be guarded agst in the indefinite accumulation of property from the capacity of holding it in perpetuity by ecclesiastical...) he uses a telling phrase "the danger of a direct mixture of Religion & civil Government". That section goes on to illustrate the problem of allowing religious institutions to gather too much power in the form of real estate and money.
Then Madison comes to what for me is the telling moment, he creates an absolutely clear "test" question (Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom?) for compliance with the First Amendment; WHO PAYS. The answer cannot be misinterpreted: "the answer on both points must be in the negative". And his explanation (The law appointing Chaplains establishes a religious worship for the national representatives, to be performed by Ministers of religion, elected by a majority of them; and these are to be paid out of the national taxes.) make clear that the problem is the chaplains are PAID with taxpayer funds.
Just in case you still don't get it, he spells it out: "The establishment of the chaplainship to Congs is a palpable violation of equal rights, as well as of Constitutional principles". He doesn't say there can be no chaplain, only "let them like their Constituents, do so at their own expence". His fear is that this will become a legal precedent. He also says that "to exempt Houses of Worship from taxes" is unconstitutional.
He then continues to use chaplains as the example, only this time the targets are those in the military and claims "The object of this establishment is seducing; the motive to it is laudable" but again claims that if the troops want a chaplain, they or their commander must pay for it out of their own pockets with NO TAXPAYER FUNDS.
In the next short but telling sentence, he dismisses ALL "Religious proclamations by the Executive recommending thanksgivings & fasts are shoots from the same root with the legislative acts reviewed." His logic is elegant although a bit legalistic, as it is based on a legislative body have no power to "recommend", only to make LAW.
The last section outlines three reasons that violation of Jefferson's "wall" is WRONG.
For me the most important and precipitant section needs little explanation: "3. They seem to imply and certainly nourish the erronious idea of a national religion. The idea just as it related to the Jewish nation under a theocracy, having been improperly adopted by so many nations which have embraced Xnity, is too apt to lurk in the bosoms even of Americans, who in general are aware of the distinction between religious & political societies. The idea also of a union of all to form one nation under one Govt in acts of devotion to the God of all is an imposing idea." He understood well the motives and desire to create a national religion and saw that Americans were well capable of it, which is why he went through such pains to explain why it would be erroneous.
The conclusion of this beautiful document makes obvious there is no mistaking that the first amendment is a barrier to ensure that government remain equally and in all ways neutral on ALL matters religious. That if there is a question as to a specific issue, the test is in whether the item in question is to be paid for in any way with taxpayer funds. That to hold Christian Protestantism above other ideas, is to "shut the door of worship agst the members whose creeds & consciences forbid a participation in that of the majority. To say nothing of other sects, this is the case with that of Roman Catholics & Quakers" and I will add Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, Zoroastrians, Scientologists, Mennonites, Shintoists, animists, pagans, agnostics and even those like me, atheists. How can there be a continued denial of "the danger of a direct mixture of Religion & civil Government" when it is spelled out so clearly, except by those Christians who in Madison's words would be "making his religion the means of abridging the natural and equal rights of all men, in defiance of his own declaration that his Kingdom was not of this world"?
This document along with Jefferson's letter have no other reasonable interpretation and there ends the debate over the "intent" of the First Amendment's meaning.
Edited version of Note
Comments